I did a quick search for a graph that would give an idea of how sugar levels vary during the day and came up with this. I think it's some diabetes site but it shows how different factors play into the sugar levels. But it shows the normal fluctuations also.

How would an ordinary person in the US try this out? While meters can be gotten anywhere, testing strips are, oddly (since they aren't a drug and thus have no risk to anybody), a prescription-only item.

ofonorow wrote:Not true (but very expensive if you get them via a pharmacist!)

Then why are aren't they in the same place as the meters when I go to my local Walmart or CVS? They keep the strips behind the counter or in a locked transparent mini-cabinet like they were alcohol or cigarettes.

Let's see these people say if you IV AA it shows on the meter but if you take it by mouth it don't! This kind of makes me think what kind of oral V-C were they taking or how long they waited to take the readings??? It's kind of like their saying oral V-C don't get in the blood? HMMM!

For some reason, that paper hurt my head! (We just found out that all the interesting oral "action" occurs within the first 20 minutes!)

Table I seems to indicate that one AA "unit" reads as 2 sugar "units", or about double.

When the AA increased from 3.2 to 69.2, (+66) the reading jumped from 110 to 251 (+141) on that older Abott labs glucose meter.

Do not know if that ratio applies to my current meter.

Now the problem with putting a "drop" of an iv solution on the meter is that it is too concentrated and doesn't simulate the blood, like your rep suggested, i.e. the 100 mg for 3.3 oz (dl) does. (Hmmm, should be able to use these measurements to see calibrate the Freestyle Lite ascorbic acid measurements!!)

First, they were using older glucose meters, so probably apples and oranges, but they did have the benefit of laboratory equipment and found thus:

The finger stick glucose levels in the mid and post samples appeared to be about 3.5 times higher than the plasma AA levels. When the finger stick glucose levels were divided by 3.6one could get a close approximation of the plasma AA levels at low levels. The mid finger stick glucose level was: 251 mg/dL: 251 mg/dL t 3.6 = 69.7 mg/dL AA (the actual value was 69.2 mg/dL)

Now if I understand (I don't) how they use electrical currents, it is possible that the sodium in sodium ascorbate may affect the measurement, so I suppose the next experiment should be a repeat of today with sodium ascorbate powder - before doing Lypo-C (which is also sodium ascorbate.)

Since IV/C is sodium ascorbate (or should be) perhaps this explains the double readings?

Here is what you saw, and which obviously does not apply to the Freestyle Lite meter:

It does not appear that oral intake of vitamin C in any form will affect the finger stick glucose procedure. One of the authors is a Type I1 diabetic and takes a minimum of six grams of oral vitamin C a day. It has not caused a rise in his serum or finger stick glucose.

We'll my experiment was with 4.4 grams at one time. Wouldn't it be interesting if only the ultra-fine vitamin C causes this reading! Time will tell.

Insulin does move V-C into the cells and does stimulate an increase of insulin when taken either orally or iv. However there are conditions that must be met for the movement to take place. First, the glucose levels must be on the low side meaning the plasma levels of V-C must be higher then the glucose.Second, The body must be hydrated. Third, The reserves of V-C must be at sufficient levels. Forth, There should be no pending release of glucose from digestion ie. Food in stomach! If these parameters are not met then the competition will favor glucose going in first. These effects can be countered by high dose IV running wide open but this will deprive the cells of glucose and although the task of getting V-C into the cells they will lack energy causing the patient discomfort but will recover stronger. Those that can’t take it will be replaced with new, stronger and healthier cells. As you can see to get a good level of V-C into the cells it takes some planning and conditions to be met. In today’s world we run on sugar and crowd out V-C and the body must use some alternate methods to sneak V-C in, if it don’t perhaps scurvy at a cellular level will set in from lack of V-C entering the cells. Then diseases will rise from poorly nourished cells that lack strength. Dr. Pauling told us that heart disease primarily atherosclerosis starts at a single cell. That creates a cascade of events. How about a cell or a group that’s just had it and don’t want to produce energy while it recovers do to the fact it’s falling apart from lack of collagen the glue that holds it together. It then rejects the carrier (insulin) of the fuel (Glucose) for it to produce energy. Lets call this diabetes type 2. As one can see not providing the environment or quantity for V-C to enter the cells does have it’s consequences. So as we can see by Owen’s report that a meter that does both read V-C and glucose that about 20 minutes into the test where the highest levels are. There is a sudden drop can be attributed to a release of insulin from the pancreas moving the V-C and some glucose into the cells. Then the slow rise as the release of insulin diminishes then another rise which is the mix growing then the release again of insulin causing a drop then the higher available amounts diminished the process returns to base line awaiting any further rises but keeping levels for sudden demands circulating.Remember that one doctor that said taking large amounts of V-C just makes expensive urine. Here’s how to prove him right Just add a teaspoon of sugar in with 4grams of Cardio C and check your urine levels with a urine V-C test strip about 20-30 minutes after drinking it. The sugar will throw it right out the door. Thank God for Stevia.

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many isresearch!

So today I take my glass of water - and then realized I am an hour early (sigh.. circadian rhythms) and also realized that 4.4 g of sodium ascorbate doesn't equal 4.4 grams of ascorbic acid!? Stress.

The next base line reading 10 minutes later after the water is up about 20 points! I was going to go ahead anyway an hour early, but took another "baseline" - up +262 points. Nothing but the orignal glass of water ingested!!???

Assuming that today's numbers have any meaning, it does seem to validate the Hickey/Roberts info that ascorbic acid is absorbed through the stomach lining, because with sodium ascorbate, we don't see anything like the spike I saw for ascorbic acid yesterday. Yesterday, AA peaked +67 @ 20 minutes. With sodium ascorbate the readings peaked at +20 @25 minutes.

So we don't know - yet - whether the meter can read sodium ascorbate, or how long it takes to get into the blood stream. I think we can say that sodium ascorbate does seem to have a "lower glycemic index" than ascorbic acid. Less insulin, which would indicate that for dieters trying to minimize insulin, sodium ascorbate might be the way to go. This assumes the meter can read sodium ascorbate. HOW DO WE PROVE THIS? MAYBE DOUBLING THE SODIUM ASCORBATE TO SEE IF THE READINGS DOUBLE?

I will still try to do Lypo-C - for what its worth. Fingers sore, so may wait a day or two and buy new batteries. (Make start making double readings on the same blood - using two meters. Only issue is cost of the strips. About a buck a piece.)

Note: The reader faulting during the (2) 400 mg/dl readings, is not be good for regular diabetics. The manual says there will be a low battery warning. (I note there is a plug for a AC/DC adapter - that would eliminate the battery issue.)

Well we know the fight or flight response will raise glucose. Really the rises shown on your wife’s meter wasn’t all that bad of an increase 30% Not bad! A thought that came to mind is have you checked the other meters to see if there sensitive to V-C. It would be interesting to see since you have 3 meters. Mix a batch of 100mg AA in 3.3oz. of water and test all three with the same batch and see what kind of readings they give you. Your 404 reading meter would be of the most interesting to me. That one sounds way off balance to me.Another would be to take SA and just add 100mg to 3.3oz of water and not compensating for AA levels and compare what the meters say the difference is between SA and AA is. This would give some idea if the meters are reading the actual levels of AA or just the presents of the AA.I went a little off yesterday but it just gets to me when I see a person with sugar problems getting their heart wrecked in the process and the solution is so simple. The old saying “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink!” Sure applies when you deal with people on both sides of the table in these situations. My hope is someday someway they will see the light.

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many isresearch!

Johnwen wrote:Well we know the fight or flight response will raise glucose.

Do we know how long it takes? 10 minutes for cortisol to raise blood sugar. Could that be right?!? (Probably means I need to remain calm for these tests )

Really the rises shown on your wife’s meter wasn’t all that bad of an increase 30% Not bad! A thought that came to mind is have you checked the other meters to see if there sensitive to V-C. It would be interesting to see since you have 3 meters.

How did you know that I have 3?? Scary. (I do, but forgot about the one that also measures uric acid I bought long ago. Not many tests strips left for that one.)

Mix a batch of 100mg AA in 3.3oz. of water and test all three with the same batch and see what kind of readings they give you. Your 404 reading meter would be of the most interesting to me. That one sounds way off balance to me.

Brilliant! I can do this with sodium ascorbate too, to help prove these meters can measure SA! Perfect. Thank you. (I put a new battery in that 404 meter, so I don't expect the same variability issue. And I don't have to get pricked!

Another would be to take SA and just add 100mg to 3.3oz of water and not compensating for AA levels and compare what the meters say the difference is between SA and AA is. This would give some idea if the meters are reading the actual levels of AA or just the presence of the AA.

Right. I got a little ahead of you.

I went a little off yesterday but it just gets to me when I see a person with sugar problems getting their heart wrecked in the process and the solution is so simple. The old saying “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink!” Sure applies when you deal with people on both sides of the table in these situations. My hope is someday someway they will see the light.

But it was an important insight. Taking the Pauling vitamin C/lysine therapy with sugar is doomed per your reasoning! Important.

Also, speaking of seeing the light - as an aside - you and all readers MUST read Hickey's book TARNISHED GOLD as the gold (the place I would start reading the book) starts on page 205 - 216. I plan to start a new topic on the idea that the only reason for large trials, is to uncover small, unimportant effects. If anyone ever argues for a large clinical trial, boy do I now have ammunition. Brilliant writing.

Cutting to the chase, all three meters read pure water as low/error. All three meters read vitamin C - even sodium ascorbate - and the same relative strengths (which may in part be due to the concentration. Hard to measure 100 mg so I tried to use 200 mg)

The 3.3 oz is supposed to be a deciliter - so I used 100 grams of water ( a declilter).

It was hard on my scale to measure 100 mg, so I used .2 gram (200 mg) of ultrafine ascorbic acid, fine (VCF) ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate. (The numbers are larger than the first test because I used closer to 200 (rather than 100 mg). I didn't measure the water as precisely last time.)

The third meter is a Kernel (made in China, sold in UK, and also has strips for uric acid). I measured the same water for all meters (and used separate utensils to stir/measure).

I just realized why the sodium ascorbate numbers are less - because I did not account for the sodium! I should have added about 10-15 percent (and may rerun the test later with more sodium ascorbate.)

I am very happy that the water-only (no vit C) read low/ER1! On all meters.

The Abbott meters were different by a +7, (2.2%) +13 (3.2%) and a -10 (3.6%) respectively.

The Kernel measured the vitamin C, and in the same ratios, but at a considerably different number, or +91.5 (from the average of the two Abbott meters), +62.5, and + 73 ??? (Added, I just realized this older style meter matched the readings of the meter in the Riordan paper johnwen cited - or about double.)

Reviewing what we have learned.

Abbott Freestyle lite does read both ascorbic acid and sodium ascorbate as glucose.

Averaging all readings on both Abbott meters, (335.3 mg/dl) These meters read high for vitamin C (335.3 for an actual 200 mg/dl.) Or approx. 1.67 higher than the actual amount of vitamin C in solution. For our purposes this may not be important.

The Kernel meter about doubled the measure - 200 mg/dl reported as about 400 mg/dl.

Going back to the two experiments (yesterday and today) it does seem that ascorbic acid spikes to a higher level early, while the sodium ascorbate increases blood levels much more slowly.

added Had to remind myself (from wiki)

Ascorbate concentrations over renal re-absorption threshold pass freely into the urine and are excreted. At high dietary doses (corresponding to several hundred mg/day in humans) ascorbate is accumulated in the body until the plasma levels reach the renal resorption threshold, which is about 1.5 mg/dL in men and 1.3 mg/dL in women

So the ordinary - maximum - vitamin C level in the blood is 1.5 mg/dl - or well within the apparent error of these readers, which is probably why vitamin C doesn't usually interfere with blood sugar readings. Normal levels of vitamin C usually contributes a point to the reading.

Using our new found number 1.67, a 60 point reading increase (from 4.4 g oral AA) may indicate a 36 point actual rise in ascorbate in the blood. Or 24 times the normal maximum, at least for a short time (until the kidneys do their work). I don't know if this works for the new standard umol/l, but according to wiki -

Thus 24 times 80 might equal 1920 umol/l. Again not sure if the ratio can be applied, (apples and oranges) but this number seems much higher than what is supposedly required for an anti-cancer effect. 400 umol/l? Duration unknown, but taking 4 g of AA every 30 minutes might be an interesting anit-cancer protocol. But only AA.

Short on time right now. Lot's of number crunching to do here but but the conversion factor on ascobic is X (Times/multiply) 56.78 (mg/dl to umol/l) or divide by 56.78 to get (umol/L from mg/dl.) In the example above if you divide 61.4 by56.78 = 1.081mg/dl

80=1.409mg/dl which is about the rise to be expected if you took the RDA (90mg)Ascorbic.At one point in your test you showed a 40mg/dl rise that would give 2271umol/L rise it appears your not going to experience oxidative stress per wiki. 45umol/L would equal .792mg/dl or not even enough to change one digit on your meter that reads double on the calibration/aa sensitivity test.

To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many isresearch!